Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
79
Step 3.7 Flash
72
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Agentic
+0.5 difference
Coding
+2.2 difference
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Step 3.7 Flash
N/A
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
256K
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 to 72. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 65.4% and 59.5%.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 56.3 versus 54.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Step 3.7 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.9 versus 65.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.